15 Amendments of Olle SCHMIDT related to 2010/2008(INI)
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas OTC derivatives have become increasingly complex and counterparty credit risk has not been consistently correctly assessed and priced, and whereas there are considerable weaknesses in how derivative markets are organised,
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas most derivatives used by small firms involve nolimited systemic risk,
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas small and medium-sized enterprises use derivatives under special conditions in that, as regards capital charges and financing variation margins, they are dependent on exemptions, provided that the extent with which certain derivatives are used do not create systemic risk,
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Welcomes the recent work of the OTC Regulators Forum (ORF) in response to the call from the G20 for further action to increase the transparency and robustness of the OTC derivatives markets; notes the recent commitments made to regulators by the leading dealers and investors to (i) increase transparency, particularly by use of data repositories that give regulators access to OTC transaction data, (ii) increase clearing of OTC products, (iii) further standardise OTC products in terms of legal, operational and product standards across all asset classes, (iv) improve risk management of bilateral non cleared transactions, including more robust collateralisation, and (v) to improve operational efficiency, for example via greater electronic processing;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Backs the call for the compulsory introduction of independent clearing between financial institutions for all standardisedclearable derivatives, so as to ensure better assessment of counterparty credit risk, and backs the aim of trading as many standardised derivatives as possible, in future, on organised marketscalls for providing incentives that encourage the trading of clearable derivatives on trading venues regulated by MiFID, i.e. on regulated markets and multilateral trading facilities (MTFs);
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that, as regards regulation, a distinction must be made between customised derivatives to hedge firms’ transactions and purestandard financial market derivatives;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is of the opinion that, through clearing arrangements and by adjustpplying capital requirements, counterparty credit risk can be reduced for contracts cleared centrally via central counterparty clearing facilities (CCPs) and non-centrally cleared contracts; backs the Commission in proposing higher capital requirements for financial institutions in the case of bilateral contracts, provided that central clearing is dispensed withderivative contracts that are ineligible for central clearing, based on a risk- proportionate approach, and taking into account the effects of netting, collateral and other bilateral counterparty risk management techniques in counterparty risk reduction;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Insists that neither must CCPs be organiszed by users, nor must their risk management systems be in competition with each other, although competition between CCPs should otherwise be welcomed;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Backs the introduction of repositories for all trades and positions not exchange- clearedrelating to OTC derivatives and calls for trade repositories to be regulated and supervised under EMSA direction;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Backs the Commission in its plan to establish CCPs under indepeintroduce legislation to ensure the safety and soundness of CCPs undentr European responsibility which are independent from key market participants;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Assumes that, in the legislative proposal, the Commission will make bilateral clearingollateralisation of customised products for non-financial institutions possible on the basis of an understandable risk assessment in future, too, if graduated capital charges for financial institutions are ensured;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Backs the Commission in its intention to provide for exemptions and lower capital requirements for SMEs’ bilateral derivatives; when the extent with which certain derivatives are used does not create systemic risk;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls, as a matter of priority, for credit default swaps to be made subject to independent central clearing where appropriate and, if necessary, checked to establish whether individual types of derivative with cumulative risks should only be conditionally authorised or even, on a case- by-case basis, prohibitedempower the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) to investigate individual types of derivative with cumulative risks and issue appropriate warnings;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Is of the view that high-risk derivatives fromused by non-financial institutions must also be regulated despite accounting, according to the market analyses to hand, for a small proportionin the scope of the obligation to centrally clear despite market analyses arguing that these derivatives does not represent a significant part of the totalmarket;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that for trading commodities and agricultural products, but also greenhouse gas emission allowances, it must be ensured that that market operates transparently in order to stem excessive speculation;